1987 (10) TMI 377 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates in performing duties under the Customs Act.
2. Interpretation of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Allocation of duties between Judicial Magistrates and Executive Magistrates/Sub-Divisional Magistrates.

Analysis:
1. The case involves a challenge against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, which upheld the rejection of an application by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The dispute arose from the assignment of duties under the Customs Act to Judicial Magistrates by the Asst. Collector of Customs, Bhuj. The rejection was based on the argument that such duties should be assigned to Executive Magistrates or Sub-Divisional Magistrates instead of Judicial Magistrates.

2. The interpretation of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 was central to the dispute. The recent amendment introduced Sections 110(1A), (1B), and (1C), specifying the procedure for disposal of seized goods and the role of Magistrates in certifying inventories, taking photographs, and drawing samples. The contention was raised regarding the obligation of Magistrates to allow applications made under Section 110(1B) promptly.

3. The judgment analyzed the nature of duties outlined in Section 110(1B) and the distinction between judicial, executive, and administrative functions of Magistrates. The absence of a specific definition of 'Magistrate' in the Customs Act led to a reference to Section 3(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, distinguishing between functions requiring evidence evaluation and decision formulation (judicial) and those of an administrative or executive nature (executive). The judgment emphasized the burden on Judicial Magistrates due to pending criminal matters and the potential conflict if they were also assigned executive duties under the Customs Act.

4. Ultimately, the Court agreed with the decision of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, ruling that the duties outlined in Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act are more suited for Executive Magistrates. The judgment highlighted the practical considerations of workload distribution and potential conflicts in case adjudication if Judicial Magistrates were burdened with additional executive tasks. Consequently, the application was dismissed, affirming the allocation of such duties to Executive Magistrates for efficient administration of justice under the Customs Act.